Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is claiming promotion w. e. f. 1/4/1979 to the post of Assistant Engineer after crossing the efficiency bar. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was serving on the post of Sub Engineer under the employment of respondents 1 and 2. The juniors to the petitioner who are arrayed as respondents 3 and 4 were promoted vide order dated 28/5/1979 (Document No. 2) and since the promotion is to be accorded on the basis of length of service i. e. seniority-cum-merit, the petitioner ought to have been promoted earlier to private respondents. By inviting my attention to Document No. 4 dated 25/2/1984 issued by Chief Engineer (C. R.), it has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner crossed the efficienty bar on 1-4-1979 and if that is the position, his case for promotion is required to be considered w. e. f. 1-4-1979. ( 2. ) ON the other hand, Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, has submitted that the petitioner committed certain misconduct and his case was considered by DPC and the result was kept in a sealed cover. The petitioner was punished by withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect. That order was passed by Chief Engineer on 20/7/1983. The initial order of punishment was passed by Superintending Engineer on 25th August, 1980. Thus, according to learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, after this date i. e. 28/8/1980 the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion and he was ultimately promoted on 27/10/1983 when he was found fit for promotion. ( 3. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 4. ) IT is no more in dispute that the case of the petitioner was considered by DPC and the result was kept in a sealed cover. It is also no more in dispute that Superintending Engineer vide Annexure-R/7 punished the petitioner by withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect for one year and this punishment order was enhanced by Dy. Chief Engineer vide its order dated 8/1/1981 by withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. However, later on, the Chief Engineer diluted the order of Dy. Chief Engineer vide its order dated 8/1/1981 by withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. However, later on, the Chief Engineer diluted the order of Dy. Chief Engineer vide order Annexure-R/14 and affirmed the order passed by Superintending Engineer. In the net result, the petitioner was punished by withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect for one year. ( 5. ) ON going through Document No. 4 dated 25/2/1984 issued by Chief Engineer, it is found that the petitioner crossed the efficiency bar w. e. f. 1-4-1979 and if that is the position, if the petitioner would have been promoted w. e. f. this date, the impugned punishment would not have come in the way to his promotion which would have taken place on 1-4-1979. ( 6. ) NO doubt, it is true that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer w. e. f. 27/10/1983 but since the efficiency bar has been crossed by the petitioner w. e. f. 1/4/1979 and when private respondents 3 and 4 are admittedly junior and the promotion has been accorded on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and further the DPC found fit the petitioner for promotion, it would be appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer w. e. f. 1-4-1979. ( 7. ) THERE is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that there is a great delay in filing this petition and the petitioner cannot be allowed to assail the action which was taken long back in the year 1983. Suffice it to state that the petitioner submitted representation which was rejected vide Document No. 7 on 7/3/1992 by the Joint Secretary of the respondents and another representation which was made to the Joint Secretary again was rejected on 1/5/1996. ( 8. ) IN the result, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.